Articles Tagged "Geraldo Luis Lino"

The second keyword for the long overdue reassessment of the climatic issues is knowledge, meaning a more comprehensive and better understanding of the climate dynamics.

However, as a prerequisite it is necessary to clear up a concept commonly misused and abused by the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) defenders: the idea that “science is settled” and that the so-called “scientific consensus” on the subject would be objected to only by some handfuls of diehard “skeptics.”

For starters, there is no such a thing like “settled science,” neither in Climatology nor in any other branch of science. The body of scientific knowledge is an open-ended and permanently ongoing construction that is always open to new evidences, new hypotheses, debate, questioning and revision – that’s how real science advances.

Also, “consensus” is a concept alien to science, which is not a “democratic” activity whose advance is driven by the weight of the number of followers of a certain line of thinking or theory – but by a permanent process of convergence between new hypotheses and evidences collected in the physical world.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis (AGWH, for short) is simple, direct and appealing; the only problem is that it flunks the scientific method test, and I challenge any of its proponents - whether they are scientists or laymen - to prove otherwise.

In the most simple terms, the scientific method comprises basically: 1) the formulation of a hypothesis; and 2) the confirmation of the hypothesis by means of data observed in the real world. If the observed data do not fit the hypothesis, it must be reformulated or, eventually, abandoned. However, even when it is confirmed by a certain data set it is not uncommon that new ones fail to match it, resulting in the need of formulating a new hypothesis to account for them.

This is how science advances - and also the reason why scientists must remain permanently “skeptical” concerning the prevailing body of knowledge (so, every scientist worth of their salt is a skeptical, not only those who criticize the AGWH, as the “warmists” seem to think).